it seems as if there's a disturbing level of belief around these parts in the concept that things that make you feel good, should be avoided on no other basis than BECAUSE they feel good. which is a statement of value with no rationale behind it - i.e., this is wrong, because i say so. pure opinion. in other words - *that* is moralism; just in a form that's opposed to what the mainstream teaches. one shouldn't avoid certain things because they feel good - this is an opposite-but-equal reaction to doing things because they do feel good. it's the same mentality. avoid things that are detrimental, even if they feel good, yes. but don't confuse the method with the madness. helping old people take their groceries home is about the least detrimental thing i can think of that still involves some level of action.
saying that replacing god with pragmatism is faulty because -and only because- it leads to the same conclusions on some matters, is ridiculous. that's like saying -to make use of the "ends justify the means" cliche- that ALL possible means leading to an end are worthless if there are some other worthless means that lead to the same end. it's backwards thinking. one should aim forward. it's also, in this particular case, reminiscent of those who try to argue that science is just another religion.